 |
 |
Dear John (and list), I have followed this conversation with interest and must say the contributions have all been excellent. I would like to offer some small personal gems of advice that I have learnt from getting it wrong in the past. They are: * Promoting yourself as an internal resource to 'support' other areas of the office in implementing BPM seems to be the most successful approach; and * Don't try to evangelize/impart your knowledge to the whole office initially. So many of these projects have failed in the past purely on this basis and although slightly unconventional, the partial project approach really works. Start off with a team 'ripe for the picking' i.e. potential big improvements for lower resource commitment. Undertake the business analysis phase and determine what they really need in terms of process and knowledge management. Invlove them in the project heavily (rep on the project board etc) and deploy a solution that is custom fit for their needs. You will find once the solution is deployed and they are finding their jobs easier they will 'evangelize' the concept themselves and you will usually find you will be pulled in to do other projects rather than having to push it down their throats; and * Ensure all teams you are working with own the project. Not just in name only, but give them the driving wheel and merely act as the instructor; and * Ownership of the process flows and knowledge content should be decentralised. Although a central repository is a good idea (purely on a geographical/IT basis if nothing else) the accountability of keeping the processes and info fresh must lie with the relevant teams, otherwise you are fighting a losing battle; and * Ownership of the KM tools should be centralised. This allows your BPM Programme Office to concentrate on developing a generic IT infrastructure that can be customised and rolled out accordingly. There was one other point which has been raised that I'd like to comment on. The concept of IT as an enabler. If we break down an organisation into its process elements there are areas which, quite simply, won't benefit from an application of IT. However many areas will benefit from an 'appropriate' and 'informed' application of IT. Unfortunately, in many situations this is not the case, with IT being used for its own sake rather than as a tool to support systems and processes. On a more positive note I really believe the tools and techniques are already out there to allow us to approach a steady-state for successful IT implemetnations. Enjoy your weekend, Michael Cooch. Business Analyst/Project Manager Office of the Rail Regulator 1 Waterhouse Square 138-142 Holborn London, EC1N 2TQ Tel: +44 207 282 2141 -----Original Message----- From: Theodorou Petros [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 11 October 2002 09:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: BPM Program Office Dear All I named this problem as a problem of allignement and reallignment. Historically management focus was on effectiveness and cost, lately the role of structure (BPR) gained popularity and everyone understood that IT implementation has to start first from structural design. Many firms are not familliar as size of the firm plays important role as well, Strategy has to be alligned (among business and IT) with structure. A Holistic approach first has to be followed. Recently I published a chapter about this problem in the book of L. Antonio published by IDEAL publications named: IT-BASED MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS In case you see the chapter in a library I will be more than obliged if you will inform me about the implementation of this models Sincerely Theodorou Petros Ph.D, Post. Doct. Public Power Corporation S.A Dept. of Strategy and Planning Arahovis 32, Athens, Greece Tl: +30103800211 Mob: +30972222737 Aristotle's University Dept. of Economics ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Smits <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Symphoenix Ltd) To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:48 AM Subject: Re: BPM Program Office Dear all, I can only add to this that we have been working with many organizations in BPR and IT implementation projects (that as we all know quite rightly often go together) and focus mainly on the business change implications of them. The biggest pitfall is to segregate 'business' from 'BPR projects' or 'IT programmes'. Often the insights that -somehow- we are all in the same boat is pivotal. We often SAY that but project managers, IT managers and business managers have often quite different objectives that more often than not work AGAINST each other. We see it as our remit to help these groups of people work together. Strangely, that is tough work. Our experience is that the 'us and them' mentality causes great grief and massive amounts of ineffectiveness in organizations. Paying attention to what binds us together and develop some 'rules of the game' to address them can increase effectiveness of project (and the like) often with more than 30%. Regards, Frank Smits Symphoenix Ltd Tel: +44 (0)1732 450 495 Mobile: +44 (0)7715 423 150 E-mail: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] Website: <http://www.symphoenix.net> www.symphoenix.net -----Original Message----- From: ESRC Business Processes Resource Centre [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rohit Talwar Sent: 11 October 2002 01:22 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: BPM Program Office Neil I'm not knocking IT or T's role or IT projects. I'm simply saying that sometimes the BPM team can lose sight of the processes to focus on the technology and the process becomes secondary. Let me give you an example. A client designed a transformed business process requiring a very streamlined set of screens and functionality. They then started to implement SAP to support the process, the process design quickly got lost as people started focusing on the applications and no one was left to actually ensure the process design stayed clean and slick. The result now is that process is more complex - 11 screens to review a customer's invoice. They've also invested in technology to streamline document management and complaint handling in both cases the processes ended up being more complex. This wasn't IT's fault - it was the process guys who lost sight of their remit and simply focussed on 'getting the technology in'. So no offence intended to the IT community - just a warning to the BPM guys about managing their remit. Regards and here's to many more years of successful systems delivery. Rohit Talwar CEO Fast Future Ventures Ltd [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> m +44 (0)7973 405 145 t +44 (0)20 7435 3570 f +44 (0)20 7794 3568 <http://www.fastfuture.com/> www.fastfuture.com -----Original Message----- From: ESRC Business Processes Resource Centre [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil K Naidoo (PMP) - CEO Sent: 11 October 2002 00:40 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: BPM Program Office Importance: High Hi Rohit! I have been delivering large projects/programs for the last 17 years. Without sounding biased, I want to say that IT is an enabler of business. If you want to improve your processes you need to see what technology is out there and what benefit it will add to the organisation. regards NEIL K NAIDOO(PMP) CEO-PROJECT INTELLIGENCE PTY LTD TEL-0828946107 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rohit Talwar" < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> To: < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:37 PM Subject: Re: BPM Program Office > John > > I've helped establish this kind of function in several organisations - > with different degrees of success. Some of the big risks are that the > process people try to take over all change initiatives, become process > police or get sucked into IS / IT development activity and process ends > up being subsumed by technology. > > These functions tend to work best when they have a fixed timescale in > which to operate and drive process competency and process ownership into > the business. The risk of staying outside the core business is that you > can get bureaucratic, marginalised and ignored. The knowledge in your > repository then ends up lagging the actual processes running in the > business and then gets ignored completely as a result. > > We are currently helping an investment bank and information Services > Company implement these functions - in both cases the challenge is in > keeping the process function lean, and using it to leverage process > thinking into the business. Much of their work lies in bringing about > attitudinal changes and influencing line management to focus on > processes. > > The interesting debate in both organisations is whether process > management falls under the banner of 'run the business' or 'change the > business'. > > Happy to share more detail but didn't want to bore the list. > > Regards > > Rohit Talwar > CEO > Fast Future Ventures Ltd > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] > m +44 (0)7973 405 145 > t +44 (0)20 7435 3570 > f +44 (0)20 7794 3568 > <http://www.fastfuture.com> www.fastfuture.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ESRC Business Processes Resource Centre > [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John > DeRoy > Sent: 10 October 2002 01:24 > To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] > Subject: BPM Program Office > > I am evaluating the pros and cons of establishing a Business Process > Management Program Office for the Sales & Marketing Group within Intel. > The purpose of such an office would be to evangelize and impart best BPM > practices throughout the greater organization, facilitate and coordinate > BPM initiatives, and own the repository for all business process flows > and > related knowledge management tools and content. > > Has anyone established such an Office within their own company? Have > you > used an alternative approach to imparting formal BPM discipline within > large, silo'd organizations? Would you be willing to share your key > learnings? > > Thank you! > > John DeRoy > Senior Business Process Development Analyst > Intel Americas, Inc./Sales & Marketing Group > 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 > Los Angeles, CA 90025 > USA > Direct: (310) 481-7614 > Cell: (310) 779-2481 > Fax: (310) 481-5558 PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. GSI users see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm for further details. In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk. ********************************************************************** We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. You must carry out such virus checking as is necessary before opening any attachment to this message. The information in this email and any files transmitted with it may be of a privileged and/or confidential nature and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not an intended addressee please notify us immediately, and note that any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful.The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the Rail Regulator. **********************************************************************